Hii HAN 


B3114 44? 


-A DISSERTATION 


_ PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF 
_ THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE 
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


BALTIMORE 
JOHN MURPHY COMPANY 
; 1899 


ina. 
Rens 


RHETORICAL STUDY 


OF THE 


gece OF ANDOCIDES 


A DISSERTATION 


PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE 
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


SAMUEL SHIPMAN KINGSBURY 


BALTIMORE 
JOHN MURPHY COMPANY 
1899 


SH ANOLP oS: 


INTRODUCTION. PAGE. 
(a). Literature on Style of Andocides, - - - - - - 8 
(6). His Works, - - - - - - - - - - 9 
CHAPTER I. 
The Man and his Environment, - - - - - - - = ἰῷ 
(a). His Character, - - - - - - - - - 9 
(6). His Environment, - - - - - - - - - 12 
(c). Elements of his Style, - - - - - - - 18 
CHAPTER IT. 
Method of Procedure, - - - - - - - - - - 15 
CHAPTER ITT. 
His Vocabulary, - - - - - - - - - - 16 
CHAPTER IV. 
His use of Tropes and Figures. Hiatus, - - - - - - 19 
(a). Varying Views, - - - - - - - - 19 
(6). Tropes and Poetic Figures, metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy, 
zeugma, anastrophe, - - - - - - - - 21 
(c). Figures of Repetition, paronomasia (Ist class), parechesis, 
polyptoton, epanaphora, antistrophe, symploce, epanastro- 
phe, κύκλος, epanadiplosis, amplificatio, “‘chain-shot,” arsis, 
figura etymologica, alliteration, unordered repetition, - 22 
(d). Enlivening Figures, prosopopoeia, apostrophe, paronomasia 
(2nd class), hypophora, hypostrophe, hyperbaton, irony, 
meiosis, OXymoron, asyndeton, polysyndeton, rhetorical 
question, - - - - - - - - - - 91] 
(e). Conversational Elements, - - - - - - - 90 
(f). Gorgianic Figures, parison, paromoion, antithesis, parono- 
masia, - - - - - - - - - - 86 
(g). Hiatus, - - - - - - - - - - 39 
CHAPTER V. 
Andocides and Aeschines, - - - - - - - - 39 
CHAPTER VI. 
Authenticity of the 4th Oration, - - - - - - - 41 
CuHapter VII. 
Conclusion, - - - - - - - - - - - - 46 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/rhetoricalstudyo0Okingrich 


A, RHETORICAL STUDY OF THE STYLE 
OF ANDOCIDES. 


INTRODUCTION. 


(a). Literature on the Style of Andocides. 


The only references to the style of Andocides which we find in 
antiquity apart from the Vita Andocidis are in (1) Dionys. de 
Thuc., c. 51; (2) Dionys. de Lys., c. 2; (3) Quantil., 12, 10, 21; 
(4) Philostr. Vit. Herod. Att. 11, 1, ὃ 14; (5) Hermog. in Rhet. Gr. 
i, 416 (Spengel, R.). 

Becker, in his “ Andokides iibersetzt und erldéutert” (1832), p. 
49 ff., gives an index of the literature on Andocides up to the date 
of publication. This volume contains a discussion of the authen- 
ticity of the fourth oration by Taylor, Ruhnken and Valckenaer, 
pp. 83-108 ; also “ Ueber die Kchtheit der Rede des Andokides vom 
Frieden mit den Lakedémoniern,” by Becker, and “ Ueber das 
Historische in der Rede des Andokides vom Frieden mit Beziehung 
auf die Echtheit derselben,” by Kriiger. 

Sluiter, in the introduction to his “Lectiones Andocideae”’ (edited 
by C. Schiller, 1834), after citing the references to Andocides in 
antiquity, says, p. 5: ‘At equidem, quamvis Andocidi orationem 
non tribuam ratione et arte excultam et politam ; subtilitatem 
tamen, impetum atque gravitatem illius sum admiratus. Arte 
Lysiae cedit ; nervos plures habet et lacertos: vehemens inprimis in 
reprehendendo, in defendendo se gravis, ad misericordiam erga se 
movendam, odiumque in adversarios excitandum plane compositus, 
in proponendis, diiudicandisque argumentis subtilis et acutus, dic- 
tione purus et elegans, plenus Attici saporis; ut iure a Grammaticis 
in numerum sit relatus et inter decem collocatus principes.” 

5 


6 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


Vater, “Rerum Andocidearum Particula I” (Berlin, 1840), is 
concerned with the life of Andocides. 

Naber, S. A., “ Andocidis oratio de reditu,” Mnem. 111 (1854), 
pp. 66-90, attempts to prove the spuriousness of the second 
oration. 

Linder, C. G., “De rerum dispositione apud Ant. et And. ora- 
tores Atticos commentatio” (Upsala, 1859), analyses at length the 
speeches of the two orators and discusses the various forms of 
πρόθεσις used. 

Frenzel, “ De Andocidis de pace oratione” (Koénigsberg, 1866), 
concludes thus, p. 28: “ Denique Andocidis dictio ut in reliquis, 
ita in hac de pace oratione ad vitae quotidianae usum accommo- 
datissima, dissipata, inculta simplex in universum erit dicenda, 
quoniam omnibus fere dicendi ornamentis, tropis figurisque ana- 
phoris quas passim admisit exceptis caruit. Tota igitur de pace 
oratio quidquid proprium est Andocidis ita prae se ferre mihi 
quidem videtur, ut non possim non discedere ab eorum opinione, 
qui eam ab Andocide abiudicandam esse censent; vidimus enim 
utrobique adoptasse oratorem dicendi genus fluctuosum solutumque 
atque ex ipsa quotidianae popularisque sermocinationis licentia 
profectum quod a Graecis λέξις εἰρομένη vocatur.” 

Kirchner, ‘‘ De Andocidea quae fertur tertia oratione” (Berlin, 
1866), has a short chapter, pp. 42-46, on the diction of Andocides, 
from which I quote the following: ‘ Andocides enim brevilo- 
quentiae ac brevitatis adeo non est studiosus, ut easdem res et 
sententias eisdem propemodum verbis expressas exiguo intervallo 
interiecto saepius repetat. . . . Singula autem vocabula quam 
saepe paucissimis versibus interpositis repetiverit declarare longum 
est. . . . Accedit autem quod ab omni ornatu dictionis abstinuit 
Andocides neque ullas fere figuras adhibuit praeter anaphoras quae 
et ipsae in verbositate aliqua consistunt. . . . Denique paene 
numquam concitatius fertur, ne ibi quidem, ubi de capitis periculo 
certat ; nam interrogationes quas in utraque oratione permultas 
verbis suis admiscuit, vix ut unam pagellam possis perlegere quin 
in nonnullas incidas, ipsa hae frequentia habent aliquid languidi 
ac verbosi.” 

Francke, “ De Andocidis oratione quae est de pace” (Hal. Sax., 
1876), in defence of the authenticity of the third oration, has had 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 7 


occasion to discuss some of the rhetorical figures of Andocides, 
such as antithesis, epanaphora, homoioteleuton and paronomasia. 
His purpose was to show the general similarity in the style of the 
three orations. His conclusion is: ‘ Tamque similem esse puto 
usum et rhetoricum et grammaticum, ut si quis iam tertiam ora- 
tionem Andocidi abiudicari velit eundem ne reliquas quidem illius 
oratoris esse iudicare necesse sit.” 

The same scholar makes a further defence of the third oration, 
but not on rhetorical grounds, in the Greifswald Program (1887- 
1888). 

Eriksson, ‘ De syntaxi Andocidea quaestiones” (Holm, 1877), 
takes up the use of the article, the cases, adjectives and pronouns, 
and, pp. 12-14, has a chapter “De syntawi congruentiae.” In this 
chapter is a short treatment of ellipsis and “allocutio.” 

Bohlmann, C., “ De attractionis usu... apud Hdt. Ant. Thue. 
And. Lys.” (Vratisl., 1882), devotes about a page to Andocides 
(p. 30 f.). He accounts for the cases of omitted attraction as 
follows: “ Mira haee res ut explicetur, in memoriam nobis revo- 
cemus oportet, oratorem illum per longum temporis spatium non 
Athenis ipsis sed in Cypro insula vitam degisse et eam ob rem 
minus ἀττικῶς scripsisse et locutum esse. In nulla vero alia 
Graecae linguae dialecto attractionis usum frequentiorem et cre- 
briorem esse quam apud Atticos . . . observatum est.” 

Rockel, “ De allocutionis usu, etc.” (Kénigsberg, 1884), treats 
the subject with reference to Andocides on pp. 14-17. 

What Lipsius has to say of the style of Andocides is to be found 
on pp. 14-15 of his edition of And., 1888. He says in part: 
“Orationis genere Andocides usus est tali, quale in eo tum expec- 
tares qui non artem dicendi factitaret sed egregia indole praedi- 
tus et idonea institutione adiutus verba non faceret nisi in sua 
causa... . At mirum quantum ab Antiphontis elocutione distat 
Andocides, quamquam inter ultimam illius et huius primam ora- 
tionem paucissimi intersunt anni. Ni mirum spreto grandiloquo 
illo et Gorgiae maxime artificiis exornato genere Andocides dic- 
tionem praeoptavit simplicem et ad vitae usum magis accommo- 
datam.... Ipsae quidem narrationes vigore et perspicuitate .. . 
excellunt. ... nimia verborum copia orationem impedit magis 
quam illustrat. Eaedem enim sententiae brevi intervallo redeunt 


8 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


vix mutatae ut subinde delendo viri docti non tam librariorum 
quam oratoris vitio mederi conati sint: nec minorem in verbis 
iisdem repetendis praestat neglegentiam. ... accedit quod paren- 
theses saepe interponit et anacoluthis structurisque κατὰ σύνεσιν 
quae dicuntur pluribus utitur quam ceterorum oratorum quisquam. 
Figuras eas maxime usurpavit, quibus maior vis orationi accedit 
inprimis interrogationes, quarum ne artificiosior quidem subiec- 
tionis forma deest (1, 148; m1, 14). ... In deligendis denique 
verbis propria quaeque et trita optat, raris et quaesitis abstinet ; 
quod si tamen pauca quaedam poetica inicit, ex tragicorum maxime 
sermone ea delibata esse consentaneum est.” 

Scarborough, W. S., in Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. Proceedings for 
July, 1889, has a few remarks upon the style of Andocides. 

Morgan, in Harv. Stud. τι (1891), has collected statistics for the 
following constructions in Andocides: (1) The infinitive with 
impersonal verbs ; (2) The infinitive with μέλλω ; (3) The moods 
in indirect discourse. 

Dr. Gildersleeve, in the review of Hickie, A. J. P. νι (1885), 
489, says: “The exceptional position of Andocides as a gentleman 
orator makes his diction and syntax of especial importance, and, 
while it is a hopeless task to attempt to put him in the place of 
Xenophon, close study of Andocides would be remunerative.” 

Christ, “ Griechische Litteraturgeschichte*” (Miller’s Handbuch 
(1898), 7, 371), says: “Einen entwickelten Kunstcharacter zeigen 
die Reden des Andokides nicht; sie entbehren besonders der Kunst 
berechneter Oekonomie und leiden an ermiidender Weitschweifig- 
keit; am meisten Lob verdient die Frische und Anschaulichkeit 
der Erzahlung.” 

Beside the works on Andocides mentioned above, I have con- 
sulted especially the full treatment of our author by Blass, in his 
“ Attische Beredsamkeit” ; Jebb, in his “ Attie Orators from Anti- 
phon to Isaeus” ; Perrot, “I’ Eloquence ἃ Athénes”’ ; Croiset, “His- 
toire de la Littérature Grecque.” 

In the treatment of rhetorical figures I am indebted to Straub, 
“De tropis et figuris, ete.” ; Rehdantz, Indices; Volkmann’s Rheto- 
rik ; Robertson’s “‘Gorgianic Figures in Early Greek Prose” ; Kirk, 
“Demosthenic Style in the Private Orations” ; Benseler, “De Hiatu 
in Oratoribus Atticis.” 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 9 


The most recent editions of Andocides are those of Blass (Ors. 
1-4, text 1880), Hickie (Or. 1, 1885), Lipsius (Ors. 1-4, text 
1887), and Marchant (Ors. 1-2, 1889). The new Index of Andoci- 
des by Forman (1897) is a valuable addition to the literature of 
Andocides. 


(ὁ). Works of Andocides. 


Of the four orations which have come down to us under the 
name of Andocides the consensus of opinion among scholars of the 
present day gives the first three to Andocides himself and the fourth 
to some later sophist possibly of the fourth century B. c. For the 
other speeches attributed to him, of which only fragments remain, 
cf. Blass, Att. Bered., under Andocides. 


CHAPTER I. 
The man and his environment. 


The works of Andocides, the “ gentleman orator,” possess for ug 
a peculiar interest which is only augmented by the fact that he was 
so generally neglected by the Rhetoricians, and that more recent 
scholars have for the most part brought him to the light merely to 
show his weak points or to renew the discussion as to the spurious- 
ness of one or more of the orations attributed to him. This, in 
my opinion, overlooks the most important interest connected with 
his writings. Jebb well says that “each of the other orators 
represents some theory more or less definite, of eloquence as an 
art, and is distinguished, not merely by a faculty, but by certain 
technical merits, the result of labor directed to certain points in 
accordance with that theory. Among these experts Andocides 
is an amateur.” It is just here that the interest lies. All ora- 
tory is more or less influenced by the sphere in which it moves, 
and is hence to some degree formal. For this reason the orators 
who were trained in the schools and became expert depart farthest 
from the spoken language of the time. So that if it is possible 
to observe the language of conversation anywhere outside of the 
dialog and comic poetry we may expect to find it in an orator who 
speaks without rhetorical training, provided that he is not so over- 
awed by the position into which he is thrust as to speak unnatur- 


10 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


ally. It is just this state of affairs that we find in the first oration 
of Andocides. Confident of success, he speaks with ease. In his 
earlier oration he is somewhat constrained, and in the third he has 
assumed a little of the formality of deliberative oratory. But 
before coming to an examination of the style of our author in 
detail, it will be well to study some of the elements of his char- 
acter that are visible in his writings, for if in any case “le style est 
de homme méme,” it certainly ought to be true of an author so 
naive as Andocides. Especially shall we look for indications of 
his traits of character and disposition at a time when he appears 
natural and at his ease. This we find to be the case, and his 
prominent characteristics are more often to be seen in his oration 
περὶ τῶν μυστηρίων than elsewhere. : 

Undoubtedly his most obvious trait of character is his pride. It 
is the pride of an Athenian aristocrat of the old school. He has 
the old aristocratic contempt for the manufacturing class, which 
comes out in bold relief in Or. 1, 146, where he says that it is a dis- 
grace to the city that the ancient house of Andocides and Leogoras 
should be occupied by Cleophon the lyremaker. This old home- 
stead of the family, to which he often refers with pride, seems to 
have been one of considerable pretensions.’ In speaking of it he 
always employs the pompous position of the attributive adjective 
(cf. 1, 48. 62.146). It is τὴν οἰκίαν τὴν ἡμετέραν. 

He was proud of his wealth,” of his influence with foreign poten- 
tates,? and of the ability which he had shown in regaining the 
fortune lost in his youth.* It is interesting to note on the one 
hand the utter contempt he has for the man who made his living 
by the manufacture of lyres,’ and on the other the pride he takes 
in the fact that after coming into poverty and want, on account of 
the misfortunes of the city, he had reimbursed himself, τῇ γνώμῃ 
καὶ ταῖν χεροῖν ταῖν ἐμαυτοῦ. But the chief source of his pride 
is his ancestry, of which he boasts upon the slightest provocation.° 
The oft-recurring ὁ ἡμέτερος πάππος reminds one strongly of 
Hubert in Scott’s Ivanhoe, whose “ grandsire drew a good bow at 
Hastings.” The characteristic pride and conceit apparent in his 


1 Of. 1, 48. 62. 146. 147. 350}. 1, 4. 132. 187. 
2 Of. 1, 145. “Of. 1, 144. 5 Of. 1, 146. 
6 Of. 1, 106. 117. 141. 143, 146. 2, 26(bis). 8, 6. 29. 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 11 


early speech becomes strongly accentuated in his later defence (ef. 
1, 67. 119) as is shown by the uniform scorn with which he 
always refers to his prosecutors,’ and the patronizing tone (ef. 2, 
19) assumed toward the State in offering to make foreign kings 
and princes friendly to Athens.?, We can see in Or. 1 the cosmo- 
politan spirit which was developed by his long life abroad as evi- 
denced in his desire to have his reputation established not merely 
at Athens, but throughout Greece.2 In Or. 3 we see the decided 
leaning toward Sparta which was always characteristic of the aris- 
tocratic party of Athens. His public admission of the superiority 
of the Lacedaemonians must have been galling to an Athenian 
audience, even in this period of their history.4 In order to make 
his self-praise the more effective he sometimes puts it into the 
mouth of his enemies.. One very marked case of this is in 1, 135.° 
It is evident from his orations that he had received very little if 
any rhetorical training. He manifests the prolixity and negli- 
gence of a man untrained in public speaking.® Now the narrative 
of the orator is distinguished from that of the historian in that 
the latter attempts to narrate the whole matter as it occurred, while 
the former tells only so much as will carry conviction on the point 
at issue, and does not go into needless details. From this point 
of view the narrative of Andocides is eminently that of the his- 
torian rather than that of the orator. Another prominent trait of 
our author’s character is his native wit, of which many examples 
might be cited. It is to be observed especially in the keenness 
with which he sees and urges a point against his opponents (cf. 1, 
100. 113. 119. 139). In his fondness for retailing scandal (cf. 1, 
124 ἢ. 130 f.) he has been compared to Aeschines, but most of his 
stories lack the essential coarseness of his great successor, as for the 
most part they lack his bitterness. Andocides must have been 
somewhat pompous in his delivery, although his oratory was not 
of the austere type of Antiphon’s and Thucydides’. Indications 


1 Cf. 1, 33. 71. 92. 94. 124. 183. 

* Cf. 1, 145. 136. 144.150. 2, 1. 8. 18. 26. 3 Cf. 1, 33. 56. 130. 

Ξ Ὁ 9: Τὴ. 19217 25.26. 5 Cf. also 1, 4. 101. 

* Francke, p. 28, cites the following sections as containing instances of the neg- 
ligence of Andocides. 1, 5. 8. 26. 38. 41. 56(bis). 58(bis). 59. 71. 75(bis). 99. 107. 
127. 134. 2,8.10.24, 3, 2. 4.7. 13. 18.19. 23. 31. 32. 37.38. 


12 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


of this are seen in the large use which he made of the second 
attributive position of the adjective and his employment of circum- 
locutions. His deliberation in speaking is also seen in his habit 
of summarizing a thought by means of a pronoun and then analys- 
ing it. τόδε is thus used in 1, 7. τοιαύτη 1, 54. τοῦτο 1, 9. 20. 
23. 56. 57. 99. 102. 133.137. 2, 5(bis). τάδε 1,9. ταῦτα 1, 22. 
60.108. 38,33. He has the power of dramatic presentation, some- 
times termed diatyposis, of which several instances are at hand 
(of. 1, 38 f. 41. 43 ff. 48 ff. 61. 101.112). His self-confidence 
appears in his frequent use of the challenge (ef. 1, 11. 23. 26. 32. 
35. 55. 70. 3, 24. 40(bis). Yet he sometimes, as in 1, 33, requires 
the approval of his hearers that he may have courage to proceed 
more zealously. It is interesting to note the almost entire absence 
of oaths in his language, especially when compared with Aeschines, 
who uses them in abundance and with great variety. He must 
have had good hard common sense, as may be seen from his suc- 
cess in business and from the practical advice he gave to his fellow- 
citizens when urging them to make peace with Sparta. Finally, 
his whole delivery is characterized by a straightforward simplicity 
which seems devoid of all guile and is sure to carry conviction that 
he is stating the truth. 

Having viewed the character of our author, it is important that 
we should consider his environment, to see which of the tendencies 
of that exciting time would be most likely to influence such a man 
as he appears to have been. Born as he was nine years before 
the opening of the Peloponnesian War, at the height of Athenian 
power, he came upon the scene of action just about the time that 
the Sophistic school of rhetoric was beginning to show its influence 
upon Attic prose. At this time Aristophanes, with the fertile 
resources of his ready wit, was protesting most vigorously against 
this and other innovations. Sophocles was still composing trage- 
dies, as was Euripides. The prose of this period is represented by 
Thucydides and Antiphon of the austere type, of which “the lead- 
ing characteristic is dignity, always on its guard against sliding 
into the levity of a conversational style.” As a boy, Andocides 
might have listened to some of the later orations of Pericles, and 
it is quite possible that he was present when Gorgias, at the head 
of the delegation from the Leontines in 427 B. Ο., so astonished 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 13 


the Athenians by his novel style of oratory. Two other facts must 
be borne in mind (1) that a large part of the literary education of 
the Athenian youth of his time consisted in a study of the old poets 
and an attendance upon the presentation of the drama, and (2) that 
in a democratic state like that of Athens some form of oratory 
must have made its appearance very early. Such then were some 
of the external influences which might have affected the style of 
our author. He was an aristocrat, and therefore by nature con- 
servative. For this reason he would not have been so readily 
influenced as those in a different position by that which was new 
in the literary style of his day. Yet some of high rank, as Anti- 
phon and Thucydides, were influenced by the new movement. 
They were, however, of a more literary bent than our author. From 
what he tells us of himself we should hardly expect him to give 
much time to the acquirement of the technical details of rhetorical 
composition. Then, too, his roving life must be taken into con- 
sideration. A comparison between Andocides and his predecessors 
will best be made by characterizing them briefly. The distinctive 
element in the style of Gorgias is said to be “its poetical character, 
which depended on two things—the use of poetical words, and the 
use of symmetry or assonance between clauses in such a way as 
to give a strongly marked prose-rhythm and to produce, as far as 
possible, the metres of verse.” Jebb, p. 126, Intro. 

On the austere style of Antiphon and Thucydides, I note the 
characterization by Dionysius (Jebb’s translation). “ It wishes its 
separate words to be planted firmly and to have strong positions, 
so that each word may be seen conspicuously ; it wishes its several 
clauses to be well divided from each other by sensible pauses. It 
is willing to admit frequently rough and direct clashing of sounds, 
meeting like the bases of stones in loose wall work, which have not 
been squared or smoothed to fit each other but which show a cer- 
tain negligence and absence of forethought. It loves, as a rule, to 
prolong itself by large words of portly breadth. Compression by 
short syllables is a thing which it shuns when not absolutely driven 
to it. As regards separate words, these are the objects of its pur- 
suit and craving. In whole clauses it shows these tendencies no 
less strongly ; especially it chooses the most dignified and majestic 
rhythms. It does not wish the clauses to be like each other in 


14 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


length of structure or enslaved to a severe syntax, but noble, simple, 
free. It wishes them to bear the stamp of nature rather than that 
of art, and to stir feeling rather than reflect character. It does not 
usually aim at composing periods as a compact framework for its 
thought ; but if it should ever drift undesignedly into the periodic 
style, it desires to set on this the mark of spontaneity and plain- 
ness. It does not employ, in order to round a sentence, supple- 
mentary words which do not help the sense; it does not care that 
the march of its phrases should have stage glitter or an artificial 
smoothness ; nor that the clauses should be separately adapted to 
the length of the speaker’s breath. . .. It is fanciful in imagery, 
sparing of copulas, anything but florid; it is haughty, straight- 
forward, disdainful of prettiness, with its antique air and its negli- 
gence for its beauty.” * 

That Andocides was only slightly if at all influenced by Gorgias 
seems quite apparent. The essentially balanced structure so char- 
acteristic of the Sicilian is absent from the phraseology of Andoci- 
des. Neither is his the gravity of his predecessors Antiphon and 
Thucydides. If, on the other hand, we attempt to compare his 
style with the studied simplicity of Lysias, here again the com- 
parison fails, and we are led to seek the elements of a style so 
unique. They appear to be principally two. His style is the blend- 
ing of a conversational diction with a reminiscence of tragic poetry. 
Further, it is possible to observe a decrease of the latter element 
with the growth of the orator. Even at first his employment of 
the elements of poetic diction is not that of the quondam actor 
Aeschines, nor yet that of one who has a strong literary bent, but 
rather that which a gentleman of culture might acquire from being 
a frequent and interested listener at the performance of those great 
dramas whose plots went back to the past in which he so delighted 
to revel. Nor is it strange, in consideration of the roving life 
which he led,’ that this early literary influence should be some- 
what less marked in his later works, though even here he still 
retains elements of poetic diction and several times rises to a con- 
siderable height in dramatic portraiture. 


1So Jebb translates τὸν πίνον ἔχουσα κάλλος. 

* Cf. Rutherford, New Phryn., 109, where the author accounts for the faults of 
Xenophon’s style by the “ want of astringents in his early mental training and 
the unsettled and migratory habits which he indulged in his manhood.” 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 15 


One difficulty meets us at the outset, and that is the fact that 
the lofty diction of tragic passion often has elements of coincidence 
with the more humble sphere of conversational language. For 
this reason we shall find that some of the elements of Andocides’ 
style are common to both tragedy and conversational diction, while 
some are more distinctively characteristic of one or the other rather 
than of both. 


CuaptTer II. 
Method. 


In seeking to ascertain the elements of his style from a rhetorical 
point of view, two questions have been taken into consideration : 
(1) his vocabulary, and (2) his employment of tropes and figures. 
In the treatment of his vocabulary his diction will be compared 
with that of Aristophanes, who best seems to preserve for us the 
words used in conversation. When, however, we come to examine 
his use of tropes and figures it does not seem well to draw a com- 
parison between Andocides and Aristophanes nor yet between our 
author and Plato, for although the comic poet and the philosopher 
have given us in great measure our idea of the dialog of ancient 
Athens, yet there is also in their work the hand of the skilful 
artist. It seemed a better plan, therefore, to make an examination 
of what use of tropes and figures was to be found in the nearest 
approach to inartistic prose that has been handed down to us from 
the ancient Greeks. This is to be found in the old proverbs and 
fables. And if it be objected that the ‘ Fables of Aesop” as we 
have them to-day are probably a mere prose translation of Babrius, 
yet Babrius himself seems to attempt an approach to conversational 
diction in employing the metre most nearly allied to prose usage, and 
there seems to have been very little art expended in the translation. 

After having sought to show some of the elements of our 
author’s style, a short comparison will be drawn between him and 
Aeschines, in whom many have seen a striking resemblance. 

Finally, an examination will be made of the authenticity of the 
fourth oration, sometimes attributed to Andocides. 

We turn first, therefore, to the consideration of the vocabulary 
of Andocides. 


16 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


CuHaprTrer IIT. 
His Vocabulary. 


An author’s choice of words was recognized by the ancients as 
an important element in the determination of his style, as may be 
seen from the quotation of Theophrastus’ opinion in Dionys. de Isoe. 
iud., c. 3: καθόλου δὲ τριῶν ὄντων, ὥς φησι Θεόφραστος, ἐξ ὧν 
γίνεται τὸ μέγα καὶ σεμνὸν καὶ περιττὸν ἐν λέξει, τῆς τ᾽ ἐκλογῆς 
τῶν ὀνομάτων, καὶ τῆς ἐκ τούτων ἁρμονίας καὶ τῶν περίλαμβανον- 
των αὐτὰ σχημάτων. Cf., also, the statement of Dionys. de Thuc., 
c. 22. It will, therefore, be interesting to examine from what 
sphere our author draws his vocabulary, having already been 
assured by Dionys. that the diction of Andocides is pure Attic (φῇ. 
de Lys., c. 2). As the words of ordinary conversation are proba- 
bly preserved for us in comic poetry better than elsewhere, it is 
worthy of note that about 84 per cent. of the words employed by 
Andocides are to be found in Aristophanes. Of those remaining 
about 1 per cent. (of the whole) may be classified as legal terms 
and about 4 per cent. as technical, such as Aristophanes himself 
would doubtless have employed if he had had occasion to do so. 
In this class are included some numerals, terms expressing rela- 
tionship, names of state offices, etc. About 2 per cent. may be 
classified as abstracts, if we may venture to employ a classification 
which the Greeks themselves did not recognize. Such words I 
mean as ἄδεια, ἀνανδρία, πιστότης, KTA. About 5 per cent. are 
verbs compounded with prepositions, frequently double. This 
tendency to use long prepositional compounds may be observed in 
Aeschines, and is especially characteristic of tragic poetry. It 
seems to lend a certain grandness to the style. Of the remaining 
words not found in Aristophanes many are not adapted to the 
ordinary metre of comic poetry. 

There are, however, some words used by Andocides which must 
have been less familiar in the ordinary conversation of his day or 
even in the language of the other orators. Such a word is ἀνωρθία- 
tov 1, 29, which is not found elsewhere in classical prose. Cf. 
Aeschyl. Choeph. 271, κἀξορθιάζων πολλά. 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 17 


ἀναυμαχίου 1, 74, does not occur elsewhere in classical writers. 
Cf. ἀναυμάχητον, Lys. fr. 71, and ἄναυς, Aeschyl. Pers. 666. 

ἀπεκερδαίνομεν 1, 134, occurs elsewhere only in Hur. Oycl. 432, 
in classical authors. 

ἀρασάμενοι 1, 31, is for the most part a poetic verb, although 
it occurs occasionally in prose, as Hdt. 1, 132. Cf. ἐπαρώμενον, 
Ant. 5, 11. 

εἵνεκα. And. has five instances of this form against fourteen of 
ἕνεκα, the regular Attic prose form found in Thuce., Ant., Lys., 
Tsoe., Aeschin., Dinarch., and Soph. The longer form is used by 
Hdt., while Hom., Hes., Pind., Aeschyl., Eur., Aristoph., Xen., 
and Dem. show both forms. 

ἐπισκήπτω 1,32. In the meaning here common in tragedy.” 
March. 

ἐπέγημε 1,128. This is the only occurrence of this word in 
classical prose. Cf. Eur., Or. 588 and Al. 306. 

κλῃδών (= φήμη) 1, 130. “Only instance in Attic prose. Cf. 
Aidt. and tragedy.” Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 15. 

καθομολογήσας 1, 42, occurs only here in classical writers, with 
the exception of Plato. Cf. Gorg. 499 B, Crito, 49 c, and Ps.-Dem. 
56, 14. 

καταπεπτωκυίας 1, 108, does not occur elsewhere in the orators, 
but is to be found occasionally in Plato, Xenophon, Thucydides, 
the tragedians, Pindar and Homer. 

On the use of οἱ (dat. pers. pron.) in prose, ef. Kriig. 51, 2, 4, 
and C. W. E. Miller, Rev. of Dyrof, A. J. P.. xvut, 221. In 
Andocides it is found in 1, 15. 38. 40. 41. 42. (126). 

πίστιν ἀπιστοτάτην 1, 67, Blass cites as borrowed from tragedy, 
paralleled by such expressions as νομὸς ἄνομος, χάρις ἄχαρις. 

πρόρριζον 1, 146, does not occur elsewhere in the orators, and it 
seems at least plausible that our author had in mind, Soph. El. 765, 
πρόρριζον ἔφθαρται γένος, when he says οὐκ ἔστιν ὑμῖν ἔτι λοιπὸς 
τοῦ γένους τοῦ ἡμετέρου οὐδείς, ἀλλ᾽ οἴχεται πᾶν πρόρριξζον. 

We need not insist on the compounds παρασυλλεγέντες 1, 138, 
συνεκτραφείς 1, 48, συγκατέσκαψας 1, 101, except to show the 
fondness Andocides displays for the use of double compounds, as 
already noted. 

In the second oration the instances of poetic coloring are more 

2 


18 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


numerous in proportion to the length of the oration than in the 
first. Take for example compounds in δυσ-, which are for the 
most part poetic. Of these Andocides has eight examples of which 
seven are in oration second and only δυσχεραίνειν (in 3, 35) out- 
side of it. This latter word occurs with considerable frequency in 
prose. The instances in Or. 2 are as follows: δυσμενεστάτους 
2, 2, δυσμενεῖς 2, 3, δυσπραξία 2, 6, δυσδαιμονίας 2,7, δυσδαιμο- 
νέστερος 2, 9, δυστυχέστατος 2, 9, δυστυχήματι 2,9. It is note- 
worthy within how short a compass they occur. It is, as it were, 
a blotch of poetic coloring thrown in here. Not all of these words 
are equally rare in prose. δυστυχής and δυσμενής are much more 
frequent than the others. Besides this class of words there are cer- 
tain others in this oration unusual in the orators. 

ἀπωλοφυράμην 2, 16, is found elsewhere only in Thuc. and 
Xen. of classical writers. 

ἄπονον 2, 22, is not used by the other orators. 

ἐπαυρέσθαι 2, 2, is not found elsewhere in classical prose except 
in Hat. 7, 180. 

εὐθαρσεῖν is not to be found in classic prose but is used by 
Aeschylus. 

περικαίονται 2, 2, is found only here in classical prose. The 
same may be said of προσπηδῶ 2, 15. 

In 2, 7 we have an instance of the use of σύν, which is unusual 
among prose authors apart from Xenophon." 

ὑπουργημάτων 2, 17, is found elsewhere only in Xen., Hier. 
8, 7, and Hdt. 1, 137, among classic writers. 

φρενῶν 2,7, is rare in prose and is here a survival, according to 
Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 9. 

In Oration 3, about the only instances of words not common to 
some of the other orators are such as show our author’s inclination 
to use compound verbs such as διαβουλεύσασθαι 3, 21, ἐμπ᾿ολεμεῖν 
3, 27, κατεκλήσαμεν 3, 7. 

As might be expected, there are some unusual words among the 
fragments of Andocides. 

Another feature of the vocabulary of Andocides is his use of 
“re solitarium,”’ of which the following examples may be noted: 


1See Mommsen, Beitraege zu der Lehre von den griechischen Pripositionen, 
Berlin, 1895, p. 1. 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides, 19 


1, 21. 61. 107. 111. 2, L5(dis). 19. 3, 7(bis). 9. 30. 33. 39. 40. 
This use of τε has been termed “ve postscript,” and of it Devries, 
“ Ethopoiia,” p. 32, says, “It is an old Attic usage not common in 
prose literature but still lingering, perhaps, in that natural home of 
archaic expressions, the language of the common people.” τε - - δέ 
1, 5. 58, is frequent in tragedy. 


CHAPTER IV. 
His use of Tropes and Figures. Hiatus. 


Before coming to the consideration of Andocides’ use of rhetor- 
ical figures it may be interesting to summarize the varying opinions 
which some scholars have held concerning the subject. 

Frenzel says, “ He lacks almost all the ornaments of diction, 
tropes and figures, except anaphora.” 

Kirchner says, “ Andocides abstains from all ornaments of dic- 
tion and uses almost no figures except anaphora, which in itself 
consists in a certain verbosity.” 

Francke notices the use of epanaphora, homoioteleuton, paro- 
nomasia, asyndeton, interrogation, hypophora, and dilemma. His 
lists, however, are not exhaustive. He says that Andocides is 
“sparing of circumlocutions,” while Frenzel says that he is ‘“ fond 
of περίφρασις with εἶναι, γίγνεσθαι, καταστῆναι, ποιεῖσθαι, ἔχειν, 
and similar words with nouns added, having together the force and 
signification of single words.” On this point of dispute Frenzel is 
in the right.’ 

Jebb says, “" Andocides has scarcely any σχήματα. 

Blass says, “ Although Andocides does not strive for the orna- 
ment of the Gorgianic figures this does not exclude their occur- 
rence in the more pointed and artistic antitheses and play upon 
words of which paronomasia is a part. Such scattered art as is 
found in 3, 27. 1,100 and 1, 124, he would have avoided if he had 
wished to be plain. It shows that he was following his nature... . 
The case is not the same with the enlivening (belebenden) as with 


1 Of. 1, 9.17.19. 58. 59. 63. 72: 78. 82. 107.111. 129.139. 2, 7.15. 26. 28. 3, 
12. 21. 31. 38. era. 


20 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


the ornamental figures; anaphora, the various forms of question, 
hypophora, asyndeton, by the manifold employment of which 
Andocides’ speech is distinguished from that of Antiphon, not to 
his disadvantage. All this belongs in no wise to the art of the 
rhetorician, since the figures named were employed as well by the 
poets before the introduction of rhetoric as they were avoided by 
Isocrates.” 

Croiset (4, p. 428) says, “In the ‘De Reditu’ the influence of 
Antiphon is perceptible in his antitheses, abstractions and _ stiff- 
ness.” 

Perrot (p. 212) says, ‘ Andocides formed the transition between 
the ancient Attics, such as Pericles, Antiphon, Thucydides and the 
orators of the fourth century.” 

Then, not to omit the testimony of the ancients, from whom he 
received so little attention :— 

Dionysius mentions him twice; (1) in speaking of the peculiar 
dialect of Thucydides (de Thuc., c. 51) he says that it is not that 
employed by Andocides, Antiphon, or Lysias. (2) He declares 
that Lysias is the standard for contemporary Attic, as may be 
judged from the speeches of Andocides, Critias, and many others 
(de Lys., 6. 2). 

Quintilian (12, 10, 21) asks “ Who is to be the model of Attic 
eloquence?” and replies “ Let it be Lysias; for his is the style in 
which the lovers of Atticism delight. At any rate we shall not be 
sent back all the way to Andocides and Kokkos.” 

Philostratus (Vit. Herod. Att.) relates that “when Herodes 
Atticus was told by his Greek admirers that he deserved to be 
numbered with the Attic Ten, he turned off the compliment with 
an adroitness which his biographer commends, by saying, ‘ At 
all events I am better than Andocides.’” It may be observed in 
passing that he was possibly mistaken in his overestimate of him- 
self (cf. A. J. P., 6, 489). 

Hermogenes (Spengel, 11, 416) says, “‘ Andocides aims at being a 
πολιτικὸς ῥήτωρ, but does not quite achieve it. His figures want 
clear articulation; his arrangement is not lucid; he constantly 
tacks on clause to clause, or amplifies in an irregular fashion, using 
parentheses to the loss of a distinct order. On these accounts he 
has seemed to some a frivolous and generally obscure speaker. Of 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 21 


finish and ornament his share is small; he is equally deficient in 
fiery earnestness. Again, he has little or rather very little of that 
oratorical power which is shown in method; general oratorical 
power he has almost none.” 

A current misconception of Andocides is to be seen in Ruther- 
ford’s statement in the New Phrynichus, p. 30: “Like Thucydides, 
Antiphon wrote in a period when Attic had not yet reached its 
full strength, and now and again lapsed into old faults; but in the 
vigorous rhetoric of his junior, Andocides, it is strange to meet 
with a term like ἐπαυρέσθαι 2, 2 (cf. Hdt. 7, 180, Hippocr. de 
Morb. 4, 498, 29, 32. 502, 5. 508, 25. 504, 22. 25. 47. Aeschyl. 
P. V. 28, Eur. I. Τ. 592, Hel. 469). It is a distinct instance of 
an old word quite uncalled for and stands on a different footing 
from ἀριστεύς, which is appropriately used in speaking of the siege 
of Troy in a funeral oration ascribed, though, perhaps, erroneously, 
to Demosthenes (60, 10).” This appears to be a misconception of 
Andocides, because the author seems to think it strange that he 
has found a trace of tragic diction in Andocides, as if our orator 
belonged entirely to the new school of oratory represented by 
Lysias and his successors, and were not rather a transition between 
the old and the new. 

It will thus be seen that the criticism on Andocides, though 
meagre, is varied, but for the most part adverse. This adverse 
judgment has arisen, I think, because his critics have sought in 
him the characteristics of an artistic orator, and failing to find 
these have condemned him. He is one of Nature’s orators, who 
had not perfected himself by practice. It is this that constitutes 
one of his chief charms, apart from the importance of his tran- 
sitional position. We come first, then, to the more poetic features 
in our author’s diction. 


(6). Tropes and Poetic Figures. 


Andocides’ share in the use of tropes and poetical figures is 
not large. Metaphor is more abundant than synecdoche and 
metonymy. Here, too, in the employment of this essentially 
poetic device, Oration 2 shows a considerably larger proportion 
than the later speeches. In the use of metaphor he may be profit- 


22 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


ably compared with Aeschines, showing the stronger hold which 
poetry had upon the latter.’ 

Frazer (J. H. U. dissertation, 1897) finds 196 different meta- 
phors employed by Aeschines, of which 21 are to be found in the 
three genuine orations of Andocides. Of these 21, however, quite 
a number have, in Andocides’ use of them at least, lost their orig- 
inal figurative signification and can no longer be considered meta- 
phors. The following, however, may be admitted: θηρεύειν 1, 9. 
περιπίπτειν 1,138. ἰᾶσθαι 2,9. ὑψηλός 3, 7. 

Other metaphors used by Andocides and not found in Aeschines 
are as follows: φρικώδη 1, 29. ἔλεγχος ἥδιστος 1, 80. ἐπίτριπτον 
κίναδος 1, 99 (ef. Soph. At. 103). διαπεπλησμένος 1, 125. ἀλυτή- 
ριον 1,130. συνέστησαν 1,134. ἀνηκέστοις συμφοραῖς 1, 142. 
οἴχεται πᾶν πρόρριζον 1,146. περικαίονται 2, 2. διισχυρίζεσθαι 
2,4. ὁδόν τε καὶ πόρον 2,10. κακόν 2,16. ἐκτεῖναι 3, 31. 

Syneedoche.—We have an example of synecdoche in 1, 51, 
avaypadévtas being used of the people instead of their names. 

Metonymy.—Instances of metonymy are the following: 1, 26, 
φυγόντων ἐπὶ τοῖς μυστηρίοις. 1, 38, ὁ στρατηγὸς - - ὁ χαλκοῦς. 
1, 68, of νῦν ὁρῶσι τοῦ ἡλίου τὸ φῶς dv ἐμέ (cf. Od. 10, 498). 1, 
107, τὴν σφετέραν - - ἀρετὴν ἱκανὴν - - τῷ πλήθει - - ἀντιτάξασθαι 
(cf. Thuc. 8, 56). 2, 7, ἐλθεῖν εἰς τοιαύτην συμφορὰν τῶν φρενῶν. 

Zeugma.—Zeugma is found in 1, 68, χαλεπώτεροι - - ἐχθροὶ ἢ 
ἄλλοι - - φίλοι, and 1, 81, σῴξειν τὴν πόλιν ἢ τὰς ἰδίας τιμωρίας. 

Anastrophe.—One instance of the use of anastrophe is found in 
the orations of Andocides, 3, 34, εἰρήνης δὲ πέρι. Such transposi- 
tions as this are extremely rare in prose literature, with the excep- 
tion, perhaps, of Herodotus, and according to Aristot. poet., c. 22, 
were completely foreign to actual life. 


(c). Figures of Repetition. 


We turn next to the consideration of the rhetorical figures 
which may be grouped together as various forms of repetition. 
Now repetition of any kind arises either intentionally or uninten- 
tionally : intentionally, for the sake of emphasis or ornament ; 


1JIn the comparison it must be remembered that the compass of Aeschines’ 
orations is about three times that of Andocides’. 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 23 


unintentionally, as the result of negligence or poverty of resource. 
Cornif., Iv, 14, 21, says: “in his quattuor generibus exornatio- 
num (repetitio, conversio, complexio, traductio) quae adhuc pro 
posita sunt, non inopia verborum fit, set inest festivitas quaedam, 
quae facilius auribus diiudicari quam verbis demonstrari potest.” 
Robertson, after quoting this passage from Cornificius, says that 
“Tn most cases the effect of rhetorical repetition is cumulative, 
serving to strengthen an idea by repeating it, and that the effect 
of repetition when not rhetorical is simply that it displays a pov- 
erty of vocabulary and of linguistic resources.” 

We appear justified in considering as rhetorical all repetition 
that seems calculated by the author to produce some effect. In 
the case of Andocides the repetition appears to be largely for the 
sake of emphasis, sometimes from negligence or poverty of resource, 
and seldom if ever for the sake of mere ornament. If his repe- 
titions were entirely the result of negligence, as some have thought, 
we should not find, as we do, that occasional effort to secure variety 
by the use of synonymous expressions. And if this is less fre- 
quent than we should expect we must bear in mind that the eager 
pursuit of ποικιλία is for the most part post-Isocratic. His posi- 
tion is rather that of a speaker, without a very extensive vocabu- 
lary at his command, so absorbed in the idea which he wishes to 
express that it continually comes to the surface, and in cases where 
the repetition is not for the sake of emphasis, he has not acquired 
the technical skill to change the phraseology artistically. He must 
emphasize the thought, so he repeats it. 

Paronomasia.—The simplest form of repetition is that variety 
of paronomasia in which the same word (or a word from the same 
root) is simply repeated without any play upon words and without 
regard to the position in the sentence which the repeated words 
occupy. This is one of the two main divisions of paronomasia, 
according to Straub, p. 136, who bases his assertion upon the 
authority of the ancient rhetoricians. The second form occurs 
when the word is understood differently in the two places and is 
somewhat analogous to our modern pun. The former class at 
times does not differ from polyptoton. Robertson, in his treat- 
ment of paronomasia, seems to admit only that variety in which 
there is a change in the meaning of the word repeated, for he says 


24 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


(p. 21) “that the nature of paronomasia and parechesis is that a 
certain similarity in sound between two words is accompanied by 
a dissimilar meaning.” While this may be the only variety of 
paronomasia to which Gorgias gave prominence, yet certainly in 
some of the examples cited from other authors the difference in 
meaning between the words repeated approaches the vanishing 
point. As to the sphere of paronomasia, we may quote the words 
of Casanowicz (Paronomasia in the Old Testament, J. H. U. dissert., 
1894): “ Figures based on similarity of sound probably date beyond 
the rise of any regular literature and originated in popular poetry 
and proverbs. By their nature they recommend themselves to the 
popular mind and popular ear, appealing as they do not so much 
to the intellect as to the attention, imagination and emotion. 
From the popular language these figures passed over into litera- 
ture as devices of style, and unlike the higher beauties of thought 
and expression, their proper home in literary style will have to be 
sought in a diction which approaches the popular speech. Judi- 
ciously employed, and subordinated to the higher ends of speech, 
these figures can be made to give tone and color to an entire 
passage. In prose they may serve to bring into relief the most 
important ideas, to combine correlated words by the concrete bond 
of sound and to impress them on mind and memory. In poetry 
they contribute to its music and give it characteristic tone and 
energy. They support the serenity and liveliness of comedy, 
while to the tragic tone they may convey a certain dignity and 
solemnity.” As an example of the use of this figure we may quote 
the following: 1, 36, ἐπειδὴ - - ὁ κῆρυξ - - τὸ σημεῖον καθέλοι, 
τῷ αὐτῷ σημείῳ ἡ μὲν βουλὴ εἰς TO βουλευτήριον ἤει. 

The instances of the use of paronomasia of the first class in 
Andocides are the following: 1, 2. 4. 7. 12.19. 21. 22. 24. 25. 27. 
30. 32. 36. 39. 40. 42. 73. 80. 82. 86. 99. 111. 116. 127. 128. 131. 
134. (138. 143) 2. 1.6. 8. 10:11. 12(6es)- 1s 17% 24. Siete 
12. 13. 17. 29. 32. 33. 35. 39. 41. 

Parechesis.—Parechesis differs from paronomasia in that in the 
latter figure the words of similar sound are from the same root, 
while in the former they are from different roots. Only those 
instances have been noted, as clearly intentional, in which an anti- 
thesis is marked by employing as the important words in the two 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 25 


clauses such as have a general correspondence in sound, as in 2, 24, 
τὸ μὲν σῶμα τυγχάνει ταὐτὸν ἔτι ὄν, - - ἡ δὲ γνώμη - - ἑτέρα, κτλ. 
Gfalso 1. 74: 181. 8. 106: 

Polyptoton.—Polyptoton arises when in the repetition of a word 
there is a variation in case (cf. Quint., 9, 3, 36). A notable in- 
stance of this figure is cited by Volkmann in which in the succeed- 
ing sentences the name of Demosthenes appears in every case of 
the declension, and that, too, in regular order. 

We may cite the following examples from Andocides: 1, 20, 
εἰ ἐμήνυσα μὲν κατὰ τοῦ πατρός, - - ἱκέτευον δὲ τὸν πατέρα - - 
καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐπείσθη, κτλ. Also 1, 7. 8. 27. 36. 73. 16. 82. 89. 
Τ 109: 110; 114: 128: 133.136: 2. 12:3, 1. 125.16. 41. 

Decidedly more art is displayed when the words repeated occur 
in corresponding positions in succeeding cola. This gives rise to 
quite a variety of figures. Paronomasia becomes Epanaphora 
when the word repeated appears in the first place in succeeding 
sentences or clauses. According to Nigelsbach, Latin Style, § 168, 
“(Ep)anaphora is not merely the repetition of the same word at the 
beginning of several sentences, but especially the recurrence of the 
same succession of words in the same or different sentences. Also 
the corresponding words need not be everywhere grammatically of 
the same kind.” According to Rehdantz, Indices, “‘The recur- 
rence of the same word at the beginning of several succeeding 
sentences occurs where the homogeneous contents of the sentence 
concentrates itself on a word which, therefore, on account of its 
prominent importance takes the first place.” He is of the opinion 
that Andocides seldom employs this figure. 

Although epanaphora does occur in the inartistic style of the 
fable, it is not at all common. The proverb is a little more 
formal in style, and we find an increase in the use of this and 
kindred figures. When we come to Homer and the tragic poets, 
epanaphora is to be found in abundance, and is the means of 
emphasizing most emphatically the word thus repeated. 

Andocides shows the following instances of its use: 1, 104, 
πολλοὶ μὲν ἐχθροὶ πολλοὶ δὲ συκοφάνται, κτλ. Also 1, 3. 18. 
35. 98. 49. 50. 56. 62. 72. 74. 89. 93. 105. 116. 140. 144. 147. 
148. 2,8.22. 3,1. 5. 6. 14. 26(d7s). 30. 41. 


26 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


Francke thinks that the figure is consciously avoided in 1, 12. 
144. 3,10. 41. 

Antistrophe-—When succeeding sentences or clauses end with 
the same word the figure is called antistrophe. 

Andocides has the following examples of this figure: 2, 22, εἰ 
μὲν βούλεσθε, αἰτῶ, εἰ δὲ βούλεσθε, ἀπαιτῶ. Also 1, 59. 86. 90. 
92) 105: ΠῚ 0 21 9:15: 70: 9.7. 

Symploce.—Symploce occurs when epanaphora and antistrophe 
are combined. This figure is quite rare and is entirely too arti- 
ficial for such a writer as Andocides. 

Epanastrophe-—When the word which forms the close of a 
clause or sentence is placed at the opening of the succeeding clause 
we have a figure which is variously styled by different rhetoricians 
παλιλλογία, ἀναδίπλωσις, ἐπαναδίπλωσις, ἀναστροφή OY ἐπανα- 
στροφή. I have adopted the compound epanastrophe to avoid 
the confusion which would arise from applying the simple word 
anastrophe as well to this figure as to the poetic retraction of the 
accent when a preposition follows its noun. Only two examples 
of the use of epanastrophe were noted in the orations of Andocides. 
These are: 1, 59, ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἣν ἐμοῦ μὴ εἰπόντος " εἰπὼν δὲ τὰ 
ὄντα, κτλ. Also !, 89. 

Κύκλος .--- Κύκλος arises, according to Hermogenes, 252, ‘ when- 
ever anyone ends with the same noun or verb with which he began 
without a change of case, person, tense or number.” Other rheto- 
ricians have widened the scope of this figure to include cases in 
which there is a change in some of these latter respects. I have 
included not only cases in which one clause ends with the word 
with which the preceding clause begins, but also cases where a 
single clause begins and ends with the same word. 

The instances of its use in Andocides are found at 1, 40, εἰπεῖν 
οὖν τὸν Εὔφημον ὅτι καλῶς ποιήσειεν εἰπών, κτλ. Also 1, 25. 
$1. 82. 99. 125. 1386. 146. 2,19. 3, 23. 25. 27. 

Of antistrophe, epanastrophe, and κύκλος, I found no examples 
in the fables examined, and but three instances of antistrophe in 
the proverbs. These figures occur with considerable frequency in 
the tragic poets, but are not nearly so common as epanaphora. 

Epanadiplosis—The mere repetition of a word in a single clause 
without words intervening, does not occur in Andocides. This fig- 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 27 


ure, to which among many others the name epanadiplosis is applied, 
is to be found especially in a style that is impassioned or at least 
full of deep, earnest feeling. Neither of these traits is particularly 
characteristic of our author. 

Other figures of repetition.—Beside the figures of repetition thus 
far considered, whose essential difference lies in the different posi- 
tions in the sentence which the repeated words occupy, many of 
the remaining figures employed by Andocides may be grouped 
under this head, although not always so classed. The repeti- 
tion is one of thought or of letter. The figures which I would 
include in this class are Amplificatio, Arsis, Figura Etymologica, 
Alliteration, Homoioteleuton. 

Amplificatio.—The term Amplificatio in a measure explains 
itself, but its scope varies in different authorities who have treated 
the subject. With Rehdantz, for example, it is very compre- 
hensive, and includes not only all of the figures of repetition 
described above, but also (1) Arsis, (2) the linking of synonyms, 
(3) the σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅχον καὶ μέρος, and (4) the expansion of a 
substantive by a sentence. 

Rehdantz says that Amplificatio arises because “a notion or 
thought which is felt strongly and deeply, occupies more than 
ordinary space in the mind of the speaker and seeks corresponding 
amplification in its expression.” A term so general in its appli- 
cation as Rehdantz makes this is apt to be indefinite. It has 
seemed better, therefore, to use the term in a more limited sense 
and tabulate under this head only the forms in which the word is 
self-explanatory and corresponds very nearly to our “ amplifica- 
tion.’ For the other forms included by Rehdantz, the specific 
terms, ready to hand in general use, have been employed. 

Andocides displays a fondness for the use of Amplificatio with 
forms of οἴχεσθαι and a participle as in 1, 4. 15(b7s). 19. 34. 44. 
52. 66. 112. 125. 

He also has a habit of amplifying by stating a thought and 
then analysing it, as in 1, 2. 3. 4. 6. 9. 10. 12. 18. 20. 22. 28. 
33. 40. 43. 47. 51. 57. 78. 86. 106. 110.111. 2, 8. 3, 16. 36. 
37. 39. 

“ Chain-shot.”—Still another form of Amplificatio is observ- 
able in our author, secured by the linking together of synonyms 


28 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


into a complex, to which Dr. Gildersleeve has given the apt meta- 
phorical designation “ chain-shot,” from the similar effect designed 
by the military and by the verbal battery. This device is not an 
innovation that made its appearance with the advent of rhetorical 
orators, but is found even as early as the Homeric poems. In 
Isocrates and Demosthenes the figure has been embellished by 
rhetorical art, and the synonyms are grouped with a view to 
producing rhythm or climax. Liysias does not ordinarily employ 
this mode of expression, but does use it occasionally with words of 
‘‘asking ” or “ beseeching.” In Andocides the art of his rhetori- 
cally-trained successors is lacking, and he employs the figure 
simply for the sake of emphasis, dwelling upon the thought by 
expressing it a second time in a slightly varied form. 

The examples of “chain-shot’”’ have been grouped under five 
heads, according as the expressions thus linked are verbs (1, 21, 
παραιτεῖσθαι καὶ δεῖσθαι), participles (1, 48, ἣν δὲ βοὴ καὶ οἶκτος 
κλαιόντων καὶ ὀδυρομένων), nouns (1, 56, οὔτε μετὰ κακίας οὔτε 
μετ᾽ ἀνανδρίας, κτλ..), adjectives (1, 29, ταῦτα τὰ δεινὰ καὶ φρικώδη 
ἀνωρθίαζον), or phrases (3, 29, σπονδὰς ποιησάμενοι καὶ συνθέ- 
μενοι φιλίαν). 

(1) Verbs. 1, 4. 21. 49. 52. 62. 68. 67. 70. 72. 74. 105(67zs). 
124. 125. 132. 135. 139. 149. 8, 26. 34. 

(2) Participles. 1, 6. 12. 17. 30. 48. 51. 52. 106. 122. 132. 
3, 94. 

(3) Nouns. 1, 50. 56(bis). 66.714. 88. 91. 107. 122. 141. 144. 
2, 0510.13.16; 17. 19: 

(4) Adjectives. 1, 29. 109.140. 2, 10. 

(5) Phrases. 1,19. 107.121. 8, 29. 

Arsis.—Arsis, or more properly σχῆμα κατ᾽ ἄρσιν καὶ θέσιν, 
arises when a notion positively expressed is followed by the denial 
of its opposite, or vice versa. In Andocides we find the figure 
used in the following places : 

1, 2, μὴ περιόψεσθαί με ἀδίκως διαφθαρέντα - - ἀλλὰ πολὺ 
μᾶλλον σώσειν δικαίως. 1, 4, οὔτ᾽ ἂν ὑπομείναιμι, οἰχήσομαί τε 
φεύγων (ς΄. 1. 19). 1,8, διδάσκειν πάντα---καὶ παραλιπεῖν μηδέν. 
1, 56, μετ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἀλλ᾽ οὐ μετὰ κακίας. 1, 70, νομίζει τι μὴ ἱκανῶς 
εἰρῆσθαι ἢ παραλέλοιπά τι. 1, 75, οὐ παντάπασιν ἄτιμοι ἦσαν 
ἀλλὰ μέρος τι αὐτῶν. 1, 106, οὐ κακῶς ἔχει ἀλλὰ τὰ προσήκοντα 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 29 


καὶ τὰ συμφέροντα. 1, 117, ἄπαις ἀρρένων παίδων, θυγατέρας δὲ 
δύο καταλιπών. 1, 146, λοιπὸς τοῦ γένους τοῦ ἡμετέρου οὐδείς, 
ἀλλ᾽ οἴχεται Trav πρόρριζον. 

2, 4, οὐκ ad’ αὑτῶν - - ἀλλ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἑτέρων. 2, 9, χάριν - - 
οὐ μῖσος. 

3, 24, μὴ συμπολεμούντων, εἰρήνην δὲ ποιουμένων. 3, 41, τὸ 
τέλος παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν Λακεδαιμονίοις. 

Arsis occurs occasionally in the fables, but is quite abundant in 
tragic diction. It is said to be especially frequent in Herodotus 
and in the artistic orators. 

Figura Etymologica.—Figura Etymologica, which Volkmann 
calls the simplest kind of paronomasia and purely grammatical, 
occurs when two words from the same stem are used in gram- 
matical connection. This relation is most frequently, but not 
necessarily, that of a verb and its cognate accusative, or that of 
subject and predicate. 

The vulgarity of the figure seems to have been recognized by 
as early a critic as Dionysius, at least. Kiihner (1086, 2) thinks 
that the more pleonastic forms (as οἰκίαν οἰκοδομεῖν) have been 
taken into the literary language from the popular speech. Accord- 
ing to Schulze (“De figurae etymologicae apud oratores Atticos 
usu’), the figure is not of great frequency in the Attic orators 
compared to the bulk. The same author says that Demosthenes 
and Aeschines were the most zealous in its use, Isocrates' and 
Lycurgus avoided it, while the remaining orators used it with 
moderation and prudence. Newhall (“ Dramatic and Muimetic 
features of the Gorgias of Plato”) calls the figure familiar and 
old-fashioned and thinks that there is evidence to show that it 
was a favorite usage of Socrates and that Plato became scarcely 
less devoted to it than his master. That the figure was not ex- 
cluded from the loftier diction of tragic poetry an abundance of 
examples will testify. It is interesting to note, however, that 
nearly two-thirds of the examples from the J/iad occur in speeches. 
The figure is found quite frequently in the inartistic prose of the 
proverbs and fables, and also occurs in Aristophanes, who even 
sometimes coins a word for the sake of using it in connection with 


1 Blass goes too far when he says: die dem Isokrates véllig fremde figura 
etymologica, 11, 2, 203. See Schulze. 


30 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


another from the same stem, as in Birds, 42. ΑἹ] of these things 
show its essentially popular conversational nature. 
The following examples may be cited from Andocides : 
μάρτυρες μεμαρτυρήκασιν 1, 19. 25. ἀγῶνα ἀγωνίσασθαι 1, 
20. μηνύσεις - - ἐμήνυσε 1, 28. ἡμαρτηκόσι - - ἁμαρτήματα 1, 
30. ἀρασάμενοι - - ἀράς 1, 81. ἐγγυητὰς - - ἠγγνήσαντο 1, 44. 


3 7 ” " > 7, Ἶ 
πρυτάνεις - - πρυτανεύσαντας 1, 46. ἔργον εἰργασμένους 1, 52. 
τεθνεῶτες - - ἐτέθνασαν 1, 59. φεύγοντες - - ἔφευγον 1, 59. 

74 > if id , < / 
πίστιν - - ἀπιστοτάτην 1, 67. ἁμαρτόντων - - ἁμαρτίαν 1, 67. 


ἄρξαντες ἀρχάς 1, 73. 1417. ἐγγύας ἠγγυήσαντο 1,73. ἐψηφί- 
σασθε- - ψηφίσματα 1, 76. ἀτίμους ἐπιτίμους 1, 73. 80. 103. 107. 
109. δίκαι ἀνάδικοι 1, 88. τῆς ἀρχῆς ἧς ἦρξεν 1, 90. βουλὴ - - 
βουλεύουσα 1, 91. κῆρυξ ἐκήρυττε 1,112. ἄπαις - - παίδων 1, 
117. γήμας ἐπέγημε 1, 128. πόλεως - - πολίτην 1, 144. στρα- 
τηγήσαντες στρατηγίας 1, 1417. ἔργον - - ἐργασάμενοι 1, 108. 

ἀποδεικνύντος - - ἀποδείξεις 2, 3. πρᾶγμα - - ἐπέπρακτο 2, 
14. ψήφισμα ψηφισάμενοι 2, 25. 24. 

ἐτειχίσαμεν - - τεῖχος 8, ὅ. τεῖχος - - ἐτειχίσθη ὅ, 17. ἔχειν - - 
ἔχοντας 3,12. βούλευμα - - ἐβουλευσάμεθα 3, 29. γράμματα - - 
γεγραμμένα 3,35. τειχισάμενοι - - τείχη 3, 38. 

Alliteration.—Alliteration is the recurrence of the same letter at 
the beginning of succeeding words. The name of this phenomenon 
seems to be not of antique origin but the invention of Joannes 
Jovianus Pontanus, the Italian humanist of the 15th century.’ 
According to Casanowicz “the sphere of alliteration and rhyme 
common to all languages is in proverbial phrases and other brief 
sayings which have become stereotyped or idiomatic expressions.” 
Yet it is not entirely absent from the loftier spheres of the 
language. 

We may cite from Andocides the following instances of its use : 

1,7. 10. 18. 19. 25. 30. 32. 33. 42. 51. 57. 59. 61. 62. 65. 67. 
68. 73. 80. 89. 95. 106. 107. 111. 113. 115. 141. 144. 145. 147. 149. 

2) 10501. 17. 18:23. 25. 26927; 

3, 6. 8. 15. 18. 19. 28. 30. 31. 41. 

It may with reason be doubted whether the alliteration is in all 
cases intentional. We are, however, at least justified in asserting 
that he does not avoid such recurrence of the same sound. 


1Volkmann, Rhetorik, S., 515. 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 91 


Unordered Repetition—By Unordered Repetition I have desig- 
nated those passages where the recurring words or phrases are too 
far apart to have any rhetorical effect, such as, especially, 1, 104. 
112-117. 126-127. 136 and 149. 2, 25. 3, 4 and 6. 5 and 7. 


Such, then, are the various forms of repetition to be found in 
Andocides, and it is to be noted that in proportion to the length 
of his work the instances are quite numerous. In fact, repetition 
is a marked feature of his style. He uses not only such figures of 
repetition as are found in the low level of inartistie prose, but also 
such as are more characteristic of the loftier diction of the trage- 
dians. 


(d). Enlivening Figures. 


The next group of figures that calls for our consideration com- 
prises those which especially serve to enliven the style of Andocides. 
These are prosopopoeia, apostrophe, paronomasia (of the second 
class), hypophora, hypostrophe, hyperbaton, irony, oxymoron, asyn- 
deton, polysyndeton, and the various forms of rhetorical question. 

Prosopopoeta.—Prosopopoeia, as we find it in Andocides, is the 
introduction of absent characters as if they were present. The 
term is used by some authorities to designate the attributing of 
life to inanimate objects. According to Quintilian it lends to the 
speech great variety and tone. Following is the list of occurrences 
of this figure in the orations of Andocides: 1, 101, ἀνέκρινε δ᾽ ἄν 
με Tis ἄλλος ἢ Χαρικλῆς ἐρωτῶν, Εἰπέ μοι ὦ ᾿Ανδοκίδη, ἦλθες 
εἰς Δεκέλειαν, κτλ. Also 1, 4. 11.,49. 63. 90. 116. 126. 135. 
2, 14. 

Apostrophe.—Apostrophe occurs when the speaker turns from 
the judges to address some one else. This is most frequently his 
opponent or one of the witnesses. I have made a subdivision of 
the cases in which the orator turns from addressing the judges 
collectively and speaks to them individually. 

Of Apostrophe proper, we note the following examples: 1, 95, 
ἄλλο τι οὖν, ὦ Exiyapes, κτλ. Also 1, 18. 99. 112. 150. 

The cases where the judges are individualized are: 1, 46, ὁπόσοι 
᾿ ὑμῶν παρῆσαν, - - τοὺς ἄλλους διδάσκετε. Also 1, 29. 37. 57. 69. 


32 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


Paronomasia (2nd class).—Respecting the sphere of what we 
have termed the second class of paronomasia, where there is some- 
what of a play upon words in the repetition, Casanowicz says it is 
to be looked for in the “ middle speech, as in conversations, the 
epistolary style, in proverbs, epigrams, satires and dialogs, where 
jest is admissable, but that it may give a tinge of sharpness and 
sarcasm to grave and excited speech.” Andocides employs it in 
the following passages: 1, 124, καὶ συνῴκει - - τῇ μητρὶ Kal τῇ 
θυγατρί, ἱερεὺς ὧν τῆς μητρὸς Kal THs θυγατρός, κτλ. Also 1, 24. 
61: 05: 51. 10 10%, 110: 12... 191. 1958: ΤῊ 2.9.2... 9: 

Hypophora.—Hy pophora is the raising of an anticipated objec- 
tion for the sake of refuting it. Of course, the natural province 
of this figure is in the speech for prosecution rather than that for 
defence, and as might be expected in the case of Andocides we find 
the large majority of instances in the third oration. They are: 
1, 148, τίνα - - ἀναβιβάσομαι - - ; τὸν πατέρα ; ἀλλὰ τέθνηκεν. 
ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἀδελφούς ; GAN οὐκ εἰσίν. ἀλλὰ τοὺς παῖδας ; ἀλλ᾽ 
οὔπω γεγένηνται. Also 1,4. δ4. 8,10. 13.14. 15. 26. 33. 36. 40. 

The article of Rehdantz on this figure in his Indices shows 
how elaborate a figure hypophora became in the hands of an artist 
like Demosthenes. He says of it that “it is a figure everywhere 
powerfully enhancing the liveliness of expression, and where sev- 
eral hypophorae follow one another it rises to dramatic vividness.” 
Andocides, 1, 148, is cited by Volkmann as a beautiful example 
of hypophora. 

Hypostrophe.—Hypostrophe is the recurrence of the subject after 
a parenthesis. This, although not strictly an enlivening figure, con- 
tributes to this end in some degree. Its chief purpose is to secure 
clearness. The figure does not occur as often as might be expected 
in an author so fond of parentheses as Andocides. It is found in 
1, 16, ἡ γυνὴ ᾿Αλκμεωνίδου - - αὕτη ἐμήνυσεν, κτλ. Also 1, 27. 
90. 88. 5. 2. ΠῚ Ὁ Ὁ 23. 

Hyperbaton.—Hyperbaton consists in the wide separation of 
words which belong together. The term is most frequently applied 
to cases in which the emphatic word is drawn to the head of the 
sentence or cases where the article and noun are widely separated. 
The effect produced by the use of either of these forms of expres- 
sion is to attract attention, in as mueh as the mind is held in sus- 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 99 


pense for ἃ greater or less length of time. According to Volkmann 
this figure is somewhat artificial. For the latter variety Andocides 
shows no special inclination, although there do occur expressions 
which might reasonably come under this head, as in 2, 27 and 28. 
Hyperbaton of the former kind is rather more frequent, but is not 
a marked feature of his style. The following, however, may be 
cited: 1, 1, τὴν μὲν παρασκευὴν ὦ ἄνδρες - - ὥστε, κτλ. - - 
σχεδόν τι πάντες ἐπίστασθε. Also 1, 59. 64. 73. 90. 91. 95, 112. 
118. 120. 2,8.19. 3, 36. 

- Irony.—A subtle vein of irony runs through the orations of our 
author and quite frequently comes to the surface, as in 1, 133, 
᾿Αγύρριος yap οὑτοσί, ὁ καλὸς κἀγαθός, κτλ. Also 1, 4. 22. 37. 
54. 93. 94(bis). 100(bis). 101. 115. 127. 129. 1387. 139. 3, 26. 
27. 29. 

His irony is for the most part good-natured, so that we find 
very little use of the biting sarcasm seen in some of the greater 
orators. 

One form that εἰρωνεία sometimes takes is Meiosis or under- 
statement, which is found at 1, 143, καὶ yap αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων - - 
οὐκ ἐλάχιστον μέρος οἱ ἐμοὶ πρόγονοι συνεβάλοντο. Also 1, 20. 
501) 100:;409.) 2. 7: 12.18. 10: 18: 

Oxymoron.—Oxymoron is produced by the juxtaposition of 
words of opposite meaning and has the effect of producing a sharp 
antithesis. The examples to be cited are found at 1, 67, ὅστις 
εἰσηγησαμένῳ μὲν Εὐφιλήτῳ πίστιν τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀπιστο- 
τάτην ἠναντιώθην, ctr. Also 1, 73 (ef. 80. 108. 107. 109). 88. 
135. 2, 27(bis). 3, 26. 

Asyndeton and Polysyndeton.—Asyndeton arises by the omis- 
sion of connectives; polysyndeton by the multiplication of them. 
According to Aristotle (RA. 3, 12) asyndeton, because of its liveli- 
ness is especially suited to practical oratory. Its effect is to pro- 
duce αὔξησις, in as much as many things seem to be said at once. 
Blass says that it occurs in Antiphon only where he does not try 
to shine with sophistic art, and that in Andocides it is in a high 
degree conducive to the naturalness and freshness of his style. In 
Oration 2, where the influence of his predecessor is to some degree 
perceptible, he avoids the use of asyndeton. It is to be found at “Ὃ 
1, 18. 22. 38. 40. 42. 43. 48.119. 122.126. 3, 4. 6. 7. 24. 

3 


34 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


Polysyndeton lacks the abruptness of its counterpart and lends 
more of dignity and leisureliness to the style of the author employ- 
ing it. Perhaps the best examples to be cited from Andocides are 
at 1, 48. 80. 101. 

Rhetorical Question.—The Question as an element in rhetorical 
effect is not very extensively treated by the Greek rhetoricians. 
Alexander’s division of the question is two-fold (cf. Spengel, 3, 24- 
25); (a) ἐρώτημα is a question that can be answered by “yes” or 
“no,” while (6) πύσμα is a question where it is necessary to go 
into more detail. Very much to the same effect is the statement 
in Zonaeus (S. 3, 163) and Anonymus (δ. 3, 179). 

Tiberius (S. 8, 64) says that the objects to be gained by the use 
of the rhetorical question are four: προσοχή (attention), σαφήνεια 
(clearness), ἐνάργεια (vividness), and ἔλεγχος (confutation). 

Andocides makes abundant use of the rhetorical question, there 
being an average of about one to a Teubner page in the three 
genuine orations. The proportion is largest in the third. 

Most of the questions employed by Andocides may be comprised 
under five heads, according to the purpose for which they are 
employed: (1) for affirmation, (2) for negation, (3) for amplifica- 
tion, (4) as an appeal to the feelings, (5) such as are difficult or 
impossible to answer. Besides this he uses questions in hypophora, 
apostrophe, prosopopoeia, and διαπόρησις (dubitatio). 

Questions of the first two classes may be subdivided into those 
which have a direct answer and those which have not. If a direct 
answer is not given by the speaker, the question is so framed that 
the affirmation or negation is perfectly evident. Those of the 
third class all have answers, while those of classes four and five 
are all unanswered. 

The instances of the use of rhetorical question may be classified 
as follows: ὦ 


1. For the sake of affirmation : 

(1) With a direct answer, as 1, 101(a) and (b), εἰ yap τότε 
ἠγωνιζόμην, Tis ἄν μου κατηγόρει; οὐχ οὗτος ὑπῆρχεν, KTr.; Cf. 
also 1, 129(a) (0). 


1 The letters (a), (b), etc., are used when there is more than one question in 
a section, end they designate the first, second, etc., question of that section. 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 35 


(2) Without a direct answer, as (A) 1, 22(b), οὐχ ὁ υἱὸς οὑτοσὶ 
μεμήνυκε κατὰ σοῦ, KTX.; Cf. also 1, 138. 3, 28(b). 25. 27. (B) 
with πῶς οὐκ, 3, 2. 16. 


II. For the sake of negation : 

(1) With direct answer, as 3, 4, ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ εἰρήνῃ ὁ δῆμος - - 
ἔσθ᾽ ὅπου κατελύθη ; οὐδεὶς ἀποδείξει. Cf. also 1, 22(c). 89. 8, 
6(a). 10 (ἄλλο τι ἤ). 

(2) Without a direct answer, as (A) 1, 137(a), τίς γὰρ κίνδυνος 
μείζων ἀνθρώποις ἢ χειμῶνος ὥρᾳ πλεῖν THY θάλατταν ; Cf. also 
1, 21. 2%a). 29. 86. 182. 189. 2,27. 8, 24(0). (Β) with ἄλλο 
τι ἤ, 1, 95. 114. 2, 17(a). 17(b) (τί ἄλλο 7). 


III. For the sake of amplification, as 1, 27, μετὰ ταῦτα τί 
ἐγένετο ; followed by the explanation. Cf. also 1,73. 87. 90. 91(é7s). 
95(a) 109. 117. 128. 129(ter). 3, 6(b, ο). 12. 20. 21(seaies). 23(a). 
24(a). 26(c). 


IV. To excite feelings of various kinds: 

(1) Pity, 2, 7. (2) Scorn, 1, 100. (8) With insinuation, 3, 19. 
22. (4) Appeal to judges’ fairness, 1,57. (5) Appeal to judges’ 
apprehension, 1, 104(dzs). 


V. Questions difficult for opponent to answer, as 3, 26(a), 
ἰόντων δὲ Λακεδαιμονίων eis” Apyos πότερον βοηθήσομεν αὐτοῖς 


ἢ οὔ; Cf. also 1, 20(bis). 181. 8, 15(c). 26(b). 


VI. Miscellaneous : 

(1) In hypophora, as 1, 148(quater), τίνα yap καὶ ἀναβιβάσομαι 
δεησόμενον ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ; τὸν πατέρα; ἀλλὰ τέθνηκεν. Cf. also 
3, 18. 14(quater). 15(a), (b). 

(2) In apostrophe, as 1, 99, πότερον, ὦ συκοφάντα Kai ἐπίτρι- 
πτον κίναδος, κύριος ὁ νόμος ὅδ᾽ ἐστὶν ἢ οὐ κύριος; Cf. also 
1, 14(¢er). 

(3) In prosopopoeia, 1, 101(seaies), the mock trial between Chari- 
cles and Andocides. 

(4) In διαπόρησις, as 1, 51, πότερα περιίδω τοὺς ἐμαυτοῦ 
συγγενεῖς ἀπολλυμένους ἀδίκως - - - ἢ εἴπω ᾿Αθηναίοις ἅπερ 
ἤκουσα - - ; 


36 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


(e). Conversational Elements. 


Besides the figures already noted whose sphere lies especially in 
familiar and conversational language, such as “figura etymologica,” 
alliteration, and some forms of paronomasia, there are to be found 
in the orations of Andocides certain other elements of stylistic ex- 
pression which may properly be considered characteristic of con- 
versational diction. In the first place conversational language is 
for the most part characterized by not infrequent anacolutha. 
These are quite numerous in Andocides, as 1, 4. 16. 27. 29. 57 f. 
88.95. 2,16.17. 3, 33. 

Another feature no less characteristic of conversation, and even 
more abundant than anacoluthon in Andocides, is the insertion of 
explanatory parentheses, which are in some cases so protracted as 
to lead the author to forget the principal subject. As a result of 
the use of parentheses arises the necessity for the employment of 
hypostrophe. An extremely careful author would be apt to employ 
this figure after most of his parentheses in order that the connec- 
tion might not be lost. Andocides uses it only a few times in com- 
parison with the number of his parentheses. For the numerous 
use of the latter we may cite the following sections: 1, 15(bis). 16. 
18. 25. 27. 41. 45. 47(bis). 48. 53. 54. 56. 57. 58. 60. 62. 65. 66. 
75. 88. 89. 90. 95. 99. 100. 111. 113. 117 (bis). 124. 127. 132. 138. 
142. 144. 149. 2,4. 7.11.15. 23. 26. 3, 3(bis). 20. 21. 22. 28. 
29(bis). 31. 40. 


(f). Gorgianie Figures. 


A discussion of the figures of Andocides would be incomplete 
without some reference to the question as to whether he is depend- 
ent upon Gorgias. It is sometimes assumed that if an author 
employs the σχήματα λέξεως, he must have done so under the 
influence of a movement started by Gorgias. Hence the question 
arises in the treatment of Andocides, whether his occasional use of 
the so-called Gorgianic figures represents dependence upon Gorgias, 
imperfectly at the hands of an untrained genius, or whether he was 
employing elements natural to the language which Gorgias did not 
invent but only perfected and made artificial by exaggeration. 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 37 


Robertson, p. 7, after sifting the various authorities, comes to 
the conclusion that the figures properly called Gorgianic are anti- 
thesis, parison, paromoion, and paronomasia. Aristotle’s defini- 
tions of parison and paromoion seem to be the best available. 

Aristotle says (Rhet. 3, 9, 1410a, 24), παρίσωσις δ᾽ ἐὰν ἴσα τὰ 
κῶλα, παρομοίωσις δ᾽ ἐὰν ὅμοια τὰ ἔσχατα ἔχῃ ἑκάτερον τὸ 
κῶλον. And further, as to the limitations of paromoion, he says, 
ἀνάγκη δὲ ἢ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἢ ἐπὶ τελευτῆς ἔχειν. καὶ ἀρχὴ μὲν ἀεὶ τὰ 
ὀνόματα, ἡ δὲ τελευτὴ τὰς ἐσχάτας συλλαβὰς ἢ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὀνό- 
ματος πτώσεις ἢ τὸ αὐτὸ ὄνομα. In other words, parison occurs 
when the cola are equal in length, whereas paromoion arises when- 
ever in succeeding cola the first or last words are the same, with 
this limitation, that at the beginning of cola the words must be 
identical while at the end it is only necessary that the final sylla- 
bles should be alike. This second variety of paromoion is homoio- 
teleuton. To quote again from Robertson (p. 9): “ How far their 
invention was due to Gorgias’ teachers in Sicily cannot be known, 
but judging from early Sicilian writings, Gorgias’ originality there 
also is probable. For Athenian literature, he was practically their 
inventor. Deductions must be made from his claims, in general, 
on account of the occurrence of some of his figures in a writer 
independent of his influence, like Heraclitus, and also on account 
of the popular tendency toward antithesis and paronomasia.” 

On p. 23 he says, ‘‘ Antiphon, Andocides and Lysias all belong 
to the earlier stage of oratory and all made use of the Gorgianic 
figures. Antiphon’s usage in this respect has been carefully studied. 
He employed the figures with conscious art and effectively, observ- 
ing due moderation, in contrast with Gorgias. Andocides, in this 
as in other rhetorical points, followed the bent of his own untrained 
genius. He neither seeks nor avoids the Gorgianic figures, and 
where he employs them the nature of the subject is often the real 
cause, as is the case also with Thucydides. Liysias is particularly 
fond of antithesis and parison.” For treatment of Antiphon, he 
refers to Belling, pp. 26-37, and Both, pp. 47-9, 59-62. On 
Lysias he cites Froberger, Proleg., p. 12, F. Berbig, and Ciistrin, 
1871, pp. xvi, xvii. For Andocides, he says special treatment is 
lacking. This lack I have attempted in some measure to supply. 
Of the four varieties of Gorgianic figures, parison and paromoion 


38 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


seem more artificial in their nature than the other two, for, as 
Robertson correctly observes, there seems to be a ‘popular ten- 
dency toward antithesis and paronomasia.” Although the two 
former figures do occur in the fables and proverbs, they are not 
nearly so frequent as one would be led to expect who was more 
familiar with the Hebrew proverbs. One reason for their absence 
is that so large a percentage of the Greek proverbs are too short to 
admit of any formally balanced structure, consisting as they often 
do of only two words. Now, when we come to examine the text 
of Andocides in detail, the result for the most part confirms our 
first impression. | Of parison, his use is very slight.) With refer- 
ence to paromoion, doubtless part of the instances of homoioteleu- 
ton are accidental. Of the two more popular figures, antithesis 
and paronomasia, he makes more abundant use, but even here his 
antitheses are often such as are required by the thought and of the 
type native to the language. His use of paronomasia has already 
been treated. 

Parison.—Of his sparing use of parison, the following examples 
may be cited: 3, 37, Ta μὲν πείσαντες τοὺς “EXAnvas, τὰ δὲ 
λαθόντες, τὰ δὲ πριάμενοι, τὰ δὲ βιασάμενοι. Also 1, 80. 31. 45. 
01. {1 105. 189.) ον 5 99: 80: 

Marchant cites 1, 144-145 as being as regular as the sentence- 
structure of Isocrates. We see slight traces of this figure in inar- 
itistic prose, due in some cases, doubtless, to accident. We can say, 
at least, that it was not striven after there. 

Paromoion.—Under the head of paromoion, we may cite the 
following instances of homoioteleuton: 1, 31, ἵνα τιμωρήσητε μὲν 
τοὺς ἀσεβοῦντας, σῴξητε δὲ τοὺς μηδὲν ἀδικοῦντας. Also 1, 10. 
21. 22.44) 66. 67. 11.025 74.175. 93. 109. 100. 109. 1970 2 Ὁ 
2 0 22 1 ΠῚ. 98: 

This figure occurs occasionally in fables and proverbs. It is also 
found in tragic poetry, but in all these cases, as with Andocides, 
it is difficult to say just how much of it is intentional. Francke 
thinks that Andocides shows more desire to avoid than employ 
this figure. , 

Antithesis—The examples of antithesis to be found in Andoci- 
des are for the most part only such as are innate in the Greek 
language and not far removed from those of inartistic prose. He 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 39 


seldom embellishes them artistically to make them more promi- 
nent. There are found four examples of the archaic τοῦτο μὲν - - 
τοῦτο δέ variety, 1,103. 2,16.17.and 3,40. The other instances 
to be cited are: 3, 12, ἐκεῖ μὲν γέγραπται Ta τείχη καθαιρεῖν, ἐν 
δὲ τοῖσδε ἔξεστιν οἰκοδομεῖν * ναῦς ἐκεῖ μὲν δώδεκα κεκτῆσθαι, νῦν 
δ᾽ ὁπόσας ἂν βουλώμεθα, κτὰ. Also 1, 18. 80. 52. 57. 59. 63. 64. 
71. 86. 93.139. 144. 145. 2, 3.8: 9.10. 22. 27. 3;.6. 17. 18223: 
27. 28. 30. 41. 


(9). Hiatus. 


Concerning hiatus in Andocides, Benseler (De Hiatu in Ora- 
toribus Atticis, p. 172 ff.) says that it was clearly not avoided in 
Orations 1 and 2, but that in Oration 3 is to be found a certain 
eare and desire to avoid hiatus. A diligence of this kind he thinks 
was characteristic neither of the times in which Andocides lived 
nor of Andocides himself, as is seen from the first and second 
orations. This is certainly true of the times in which his first 
two orations were delivered. But it is worthy of note that the 
years between the delivery of orations one and three (399-390) 
were years of especial activity on the part of Isocrates, that master 
in the avoidance of hiatus. During these years he wrote at least 
six orations, and opened his school at Athens. It is not going 
too far to assume that Andocides made some attempt to follow 
this literary fad, which had such an influence upon his successors. 
Blass sees in the avoidance of hiatus in Oration 3, “a progress of 
the orator in seven years since the delivery of Oration 1.” I cer- 
tainly could not agree with those critics who see in this feature 
evidence for the spuriousness of the third oration. 


CHAPTER V. 
Andocides and Aeschines. 


Richardson, in his edition of Aeschines against Ctesiphon, 
Intro., p. 30, says that “Among features fairly characteristic of 
the style of Aeschines may be mentioned : 

“1, Diatyposis, or vivid presentation of a picture. 

«2. Apostrophe. 


40 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


‘3. Inclination to digression, which justifies the verdict of 
Quintilian (x, 1, 77): ‘Plenior Aeschines et magis fusus et 
grandiori similis quo minus strictus est ; carnis tamen plus habet, 
minus lacertorum.’ 

“4, Exaggeration. 

“5, A fondness for the ‘figura etymologica,’ his most striking 
superficial characteristic. 

“In a less striking degree than Demosthenes he exhibits: 
(1) The art of dramatic representation, 7. e., carrying on of a 
discussion with question and answer. (2) The use of a pair of 
words to express a single notion, mainly for the purpose of 
dwelling longer on the thought.” 

When we compare the foregoing estimate of Aeschines with the 
prominent characteristics of the diction of Andocides, there is seen 
to be a strong resemblance between these two amateur orators in 
many points. Their differences are due mainly to a difference in 
the social standing, disposition and training of the two men, as 
well as to the greater practice in his art which the younger man 
had. Both show their ability at dramatization in the portrayal of 
telling scenes and in the frequent use of apostrophe. Both show 
their lack of rhetorical training in their tendency to digression. 
Both have many points in common with the diction of conversa- 
tional language. Aeschines was a man of greater natural ability 
than Andocides and more inclined to literary pursuits. Note his 
numerous quotations from the poets, of which there are no less 
than a dozen, including citations from Homer, Hesiod and 
Euripides. Then he was a man of more passion than Andocides, 
as may be seen from his greater vigor of expression and the 
profusion and variety of his oaths. He had received some prepa- 
ration for his work as an orator by his short practice as an actor 
and his familiarity with the law courts. Andocides, on the other 
hand, was a successful man of affairs, who mounted the bema in 
defence of his own liberty. Some differences in their style find 
their explanation in the fact that Aeschines was of extremely 
humble origin, and had attained his position of prominence only 
by a severe struggle, which had left a certain bitterness, while 
Andocides was a member of the long-established aristocracy. 
True, his life had been a hard one, but successful enough in some 


΄ 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 41 


respects for him to retain the patronizing air characteristic of one 
of his position. Aeschines, while he has more of the poetic 
elements in his diction than Andocides, is at the same time more 
vulgar, 


CHapTerR VI. 
Authenticity of the Fourth Oration. 


That the oration κατ᾽ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου so long continued to be 
ascribed to Andocides is due in great measure to the fact that it is 
cited without suspicion by Harpocration and Photius, although 
some more recent writers claim to see a similarity of style between 
this and the other orations commonly attributed to him. 

Ruhnken, in his reply to Taylor, says: “ Whoever obtains a 
certain familiarity with Andocides will perceive in this oration the 
same form of speaking, the same force and gravity as in the other 
speeches. For these reasons,” he continues, “we must attribute 
this one to Andocides, especially on the authority of Photius and 
Harpocration.”’ 

Valckenaer, too, thought that “the style of Oration 4 showed 
the same vehemence of speaking and the same liberty.” 

And quite recently W. S. Scarborough, in Trans. of Am. Phil. 
Asso., 1889, says: “As to the κατ᾽ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου, whether Ando- 
cides was the author or not, there is much discussion. Yet the 
similarity of style, the numerous periods ending in anacolutha, 
etc., ete., aside from the historical inaccuracies, would indicate that 
he was the author of the oration against Alcibiades.” We should 
be glad if he had specified to what the etc. refers. And as to 
historical data, Andocides’ inaccuracies occur in reference to early 
history, not concerning contemporaneous facts such as the mistakes 
found in Oration 4. On the contrary, Andocides is said to have 
gained his place in the canon of the Attic orators partly on account 
of his value as a historian of the times in which he lived. 

Taylor attributed this oration to Phaeax, and was answered, but 
inconclusively, by Valckenaer and Ruhnken, who defended Ando- 
cidean authorship. These three dissertations occur in Becker’s 
“Andocides iibersetzt wnd erldéutert.” 

Blass and Jebb consider the oration spurious, and set it down as 


42 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


the work of a sophist of a later date, agreeing in this with Meier 
and Grote (ef. 4, 203; 6, 10; 7, 144) and most recent writers. 
Thirlwall, however, devotes five pages (8, 493-8) to a review of 
the evidence and thinks the work must still be considered Ando- 
cidean. Blass says that nothing demands placing it later than 
some time in the fourth century. We know that such speeches 
were written in the time of the Panegyricus of Isocrates (¢f. ὃ 188), 
and even by such men as Lysias and Polyecrates. 

Most of the proof hitherto given for the spuriousness of the 
speech is based upon the misconception of ostracism and the 
historical impossibility of the oration having been delivered. My 
effort will be to examine its authenticity by a stylistic study of the 
fourth oration. 

The first question to be settled is whether the speech was 
actually delivered, as it purports to have been, or is merely the 
written work of a later author. If the speech was delivered, the 
date may be fixed by internal evidence. WValckenaer strangely 
enough, not taking account of the reference to Melos, used as an 
argument for Andocidean authorship the statement in ὃ 8, τετράκις 
ἀγωνιζόμενος ἀπέφυγον, declaring that they have reference to the 
trials on account of the mutilation of the statues of Hermes, the 
disclosure of the mysteries and his return, which, according to this, 
must have all taken place before the delivery of this oration. The 
reference to the capture of Melos shows that the delivery must be 
placed after that event, which occurred in the winter of 416-- 
415 B.c. Then Nicias left Athens in the spring of 415, never to 
return. So, if the occasion of this oration was historic, the scene 
of its delivery could only be laid in the early part of the year 415. 
Here the internal evidence contradicts itself. In §§ 22 and 23 
there is an incongruity which Thirlwall, 3, 496, glides smoothly 
over by calling it a “rhetorical exaggeration,” and adopting the 
suggestion of Droysen (Ueber die Hermok., p. 199, note), that the 
Melian captive was taken in the early part of the siege. Further, 
the speaker in § 8 says that he has been four times tried, and in 
§ 41 that he has been an ambassador to Molossia, Thesprotia, 
Italy and Sicily. But Andocides, in Oration 2, 7, speaking of 
this year 415, in which Oration 4 must have been given, if 
delivered at all, pleads that he was young and foolish at the time. 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides, 43 


Grote, 6, 11, says that the story of Alcibiades’ duplication of 
the tribute, §§ 11 and 12, is virtually contrary to the statement 
of Plutarch, probably borrowed from Aeschines, who says that 
the demagogues gradually increased the tribute to 1800 talents 
(Plutarch, Aristeid., α. 24). 

Furthermore, there are some particular mistakes which an 
intelligent man could hardly have made in speaking of the events 
of his own and recent times. In § 33 Kimon is said to have been 
banished because he married his own sister. In ὃ 13 the com- 
mander at Delium, a battle fought only nine years before the 
supposed date of the speech, is called Hipponikos instead of 
Hippocrates. 

Then the speech represents an entire misconception of the idea 
of ostracism such as could exist only after the institution had 
fallen into disuse. Under this ancient form of the secret ballot 
law anything like an open rivalry between two candidates and an 
attempt to prejudice the popular vote would be impossible. With 
the Attic delicacy of feeling the man making such an attempt 
would be sure to lose his case by this bold assumption that he was 
prominent enough to necessitate recourse to ostracism. Moreover, 
no writer mentions Andocides as in danger of ostracism in connec- 
tion with Alcibiades and Nicias. Phaeax is named by Plutarch 
with Nicias and Alcibiades as being liable to ostracism at the 
same time. It was this which led Taylor to ascribe the speech to 
Phaeax. It is hardly necessary to reply to this, for the proof 
seems conclusive that it was not delivered at all. Accepting this 
conclusion, our next inquiry will be as to whether the composition 
of the work can be attributed to Andocides. Apart from the 
mistakes and inconsistencies already noted, the investigation may 
be pursued still further by observing some of the differences in the 
style of composition between the fourth oration and the first three. 

It will be remembered that one of the prominent features of the 
style of Andocides is his abundant use of the various forms of 
repetition, intentional and unintentional. Apparently this very 
thing was especially repugnant to the author of the fourth oration, 
for one of the most noticeable characteristics of his style is his 
eager search after variety in expression. Take, for example, ὃ 25, 
where within the space of five lines we have ἀντερεῖν - - λέξειν - - 


44 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


ἀπολογήσεσθαι - - διηγήσομαι. In ὃ 26 compare ἦλθε ζεῦγος 
ἵππων ἄγων with ἀφίκετο ζεῦγος ἵππων ἔχων, ten lines below. 
Compare εἰς τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον in 24 with τὸ λοιπόν in 36. In 
25 and 26 he uses the adverbial endings in Ὀλυμπίασι and 
᾿Ολυμπίαζξε, while in 30 he uses the preposition, εἰς Ολυμπίαν. 
In 27 note ἀνταγωνίζεσθαι and ἁμιλλᾶσθαι. For other examples 
of. §§ 1. 2. 3. 4. 7. 9. 12. 13. 18. 19. 21. 25. 31. 32. 35. 36. 

We may note right here a considerable divergence in vocabu- 
lary. Apart from proper names and peculiar phrases, there are 
over 180 words in the fourth oration not found in any of the 
other three, which seems rather large, even making allowance for 
a difference of subject-matter. The employment of some of the 
words in this list seems to be due to the author’s desire for variety. 
We may note also in the list some late words. 

Most of the figures of repetition employed by Andocides are 
either entirely absent or used only sparingly, except, as in the case 
of arsis, where they may be of service to mark an antithesis. We 
do find, however, examples of the use of alliteration, paronomasia, 
the linking of synonyms, and rarely epanaphora. 

Then, too, the figures which Andocides uses to enliven his 
narrative are almost entirely wanting. 

When, however, we come to the Gorgianic figures, in the use of 
which Andocides is rather sparing, we find them quite abundant. 
In fact, perhaps the most prominent feature of style which 
impresses itself upon us is the decided antithetical structure that 
prevails throughout the oration. This is seen especially in the 
solemn and formal proemium, which, as Blass remarks, is quite 
Antiphontean in style. Yet the narrative, too, which savors very 
much of compilation, is honeycombed with balanced clauses. It is 
interesting to note in this connection that in the construction of 
antitheses the author has in no case employed the τοῦτο μὲν - - 
τοῦτο δέ variety, of which two examples are found in the earliest 
of Andocides’ orations and one in each of the others. This fact 
may be regarded as one indication that this oration was composed 
later than the first three, just as in the case of Antiphon, the fact 
that antitheses of this kind occur in the first five orations, but not 
in the sixth, is taken by Blass as an evidence of the later composi- 
tion of the sixth oration. But we have seen that, if Andocides 
composed the κατ᾽ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου at all, it must have been several 


A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 45 


years earlier than any of his extant works. It will be remembered 
that Andocides uses paronomasia more than any of the other 
Gorgianic figures. The reverse is true in the fourth oration, 
where paronomasia is the least common of the four figures. 

Another characteristic of this oration which seems to indicate 
the sophistic nature of its composer is the frequent insertion of 
generalizing statements and moral observations. We have two of 
these in the first section: (1) πολίτου δὲ ἀγαθοῦ - - προκινδυ- 
νεύειν - - τοῦ πλήθους, κτλ. (2) διὰ μὲν yap τοὺς τῶν ἰδίων 
ἐπιμελουμένους οὐδὲν αἱ πόλεις μείζους καθίστανται, κτλ. For 
other examples οὗ. 88 4. 6. 8. 9. 12. 15. 19. 21. 24. 82. 

Eriksson, in his dissertation, notes some of the grammatical 
constructions peculiar to this oration. 

Concerning hiatus in this speech, Benseler says that, although 
not entirely avoided, yet the examples are fewer in comparison 
with the first and second orations. 


Such, then, are some of the differences in style which exist 
between the fourth oration and the other three. Though some of 
the variations are of small importance, their cumulative evidence 
greatly strengthens the conviction reached by an examination of 
the subject-matter of the speech, that this work cannot be con- 
sidered the composition of Andocides. Its author has not the 
natural eloquence of Andocides. Though not a skilful artist, he 
had evidently made some study of the principles of oratory laid 
down in the schools. Blass observes that there are no archaisms 
either in expression or composition, but, on the contrary, the dic- 
tion is the artificial and non-prosaic language of the 4th century, 
and that the periodicity is almost Isocratean, although hiatus is 
not entirely absent. The character and career of Alcibiades were 
always an interesting subject for discussion. Then the connection 
of his name with the exercise of the institution of ostracism, at the 
time when it practically passed out of existence, and Andocides’ 
prominence in one of the greatest sensations of those times, would 
complete the setting for the scene of the speech. As has already 
been observed, the composition of the work must be placed suffi- 
ciently late to account for the entire misconception of the nature of 
the institution of ostracism and the inaccurate knowledge of con- 
temporary events. Perhaps its ascription to Andocides is due in 


46 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 


some measure to the predominance of narrative. Blass is doubt- 
less correct in attributing it to a late sophist, possibly of the 4th 
century. 


CHaPTerR VII. 
Conclusion. 


We come now to the conclusion, and may summarize in a few 
words our results. This study of Andocides has attempted to 
show, in the first place, from the author’s own words, the promi- 
nent traits of his character and his social standing. Next we tried 
to show that his style is the blending of a conversational diction 
with a reminiscence of tragic poetry. In doing so, we had 
occasion, first, to examine his vocabulary. This was found to be 
largely the language of dialog, taking Aristophanes as a standard. 
Yet at the same time, in comparison with the number of pages 
covered by the orations of our author, there is to be found a con- 
siderable number of words which are unusual with the orators and 
many of which havea distinctly poetic flavor. An examination was 
then made of Andocides’ use of tropes and figures, in which we 
found that of the rhetorical figures he uses almost exclusively such 
as are to be found either in inartistic prose or in the writings of the 
dramatists. It was further observed that these figures were, for the 
most part, used either to enliven the narrative or to give it emphasis. 
Of the figures used to give emphasis, it was found that the greater 
part could be classified as some form of repetition. Of the four 
so-called Gorgianic figures, he was seen to use chiefly those that 
are to be found abundantly in the language long before the time 
of Gorgias. And further, Andocides’ use of these figures appeared 
to be such as is native to the language, and not after the artificial 
manner of Gorgias. In comparing the three orations, the influence 
of poetry seemed to be more pronounced in the early speech, and 
then yielded to the more popular elements in the later efforts of 
the orator. A short comparison was then drawn between Ando- 
cides and Aeschines, the two amateurs in the canon of the Ten 
Orators. And finally, a test was made of the authenticity of the 
fourth oration by applying to it the canons of criticism established 
for the other three. 


LIFE. 


The author of this dissertation was born at Marietta, Ohio, Septem- 
ber 12,1871. His parents are Joseph Addison and Sarah Shipman 
Kingsbury, at present living in Pittsburg, Pa., where the former is 
Superintendent of the Keystone Live Stock Express Company. 

The author received his early education in the public schools of 
Marietta, O., Allegheny, Pa., Pittsburg, Pa., and graduated from the 
High School of Cleveland, O., in 1889. Removing to Brooklyn, 
N. Y., he spent two years at the University of the City of New York. 
After this, returning to Pittsburg, Pa., he completed his college course 
with the degree of B. A. in 1893, at Marietta College, his father’s 
Alma Mater. From the same institution he received the degree of 
M. A. in 1896. The two years following graduation were spent in 
Pittsburg in giving private lessons and in business. In the fall of 1895 
he entered Johns Hopkins University as candidate for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy in Greek, Latin and Sanskrit, which he received 
in June, 1898. 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


Return to desk from which borrowed. 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 


RAG SFC 


DAVIS 


INTER LIBRARY 
LOAN 
ONE MONTH AFTER RECEI L 
FEB 15 1967 


LD 21-100m-9,’48 (B399s16) 476 


ἱ 


τ τ 


SS 


